I've come to realise I no longer have any reason to be concerned with the superdelegate issue as so vociferously argued by the HRC campaign. The reason is simple: It's a game of smoke and mirrors.
Most people are well-aware that the greatest tools a magician has at his disposal are sleight of hand and misdirection. If the magician's audience can't be misled, and can't be distracted, the magician will not have an audience very long.
This is precisely the game the HRC campaign is playing right now.
Let us first look at the argument some make, that the HRC campaign is willing to take such actions because they will do anything in order to secure the nomination. This is fatally flawed, on its face.
Arguments about Clinton's electability tend to ebb and flow in these parts, both sides making convincing cases. While I'm more pessimistic about her "ceiling" -- I'd posit it's around 50% of the electorate -- I understand that there are those who believe it's a bit higher. Either way, that she is a polarising figure is no secret to anyone, on either side of the aisle.
Now, take that into consideration when looking at the superdelegate issue. The Clinton campaign is well aware of the schisms this would cause across the Democratic party. I am sure the Clinton campaign is also well aware that Democrats are nothing close to being anywhere as lockstep as the GOP constituents. Markos himself makes it painfully evident just how far removed the Democratic constituency is from united, in Crashing the Gate. For the HRC campaign to think they could wrestle for the nomination, like a fumbled football, and come out of it with a unified party who would back her in the general election would be pure political naivety and/or stupidity.
The Clintons have been in Washington long enough, however, to be neither that stupid nor naive.
In the meantime, in the post-Super Tuesday and Potomac Primary events, even during the ensuing superdelegate firestorm, we're finding that there are even superdelegates who are switching allegiances. Such actions would seem to even further undermine the Clinton campaign's position.
So why, then, would the Clinton campaign announce such brash actions? Quite simply, it's the magician's misdirection at work. Let's consider what cards the Clinton campaign is playing.
- Free Publicity. This, of course, is the easy one. Following on the news of Obama's 8-0 sweep, it has distracted the mainstream media, whom all have covered, ad nauseum, the superdelegate angle. Immediately following Obama's victories on Super Tuesday and then in the Potomac Primaries, the talking heads were all considering how difficult it would be for Hillary to overcome this deficit in momentum. Cue the "automatic delegate" terminology, cue the talk about "incendiary actions", and before you know it, CNN.com has a front page. It's nearly monopolised the media.
- Political Jujitsu This is what I'd posit to be the larger, but shadowy, concept at play here. There's no doubt that the superdelegate issue has Obama supporters up in arms, one only need look at the plethora of diaries here at Daily Kos crying foul. It's even gotten Moveon.org to campaign against it. No one can argue that this isn't a distraction to the Obama supporters.
Why does this matter? Simply put, the HRC campaign is outflanked in terms of terms of online support, organization and financial prowess. As such, I see the superdelegate argument by the Clinton campaign, as an active effort, a jujitsu tactic, to use the netroots' strengths against themselves.
Ask yourself -- how many angry missives have been written about the latest Clinton ploy? And then ask yourself again -- how much phone banking could've been done in the time it took you to write, or read, and perhaps comment, on yet another diary discussing Hillary's Evil Plan(tm)? Beyond the journals, articles and weblogs, how much hand-wringing and concern has gone on when and left opportunities to promote an Obama candidacy squandered?
Much of the strength of the netroots lie in the ability to hone in on an issue, vet it, publicise it, and either damn it or praise it based on its veracity and relevance... and we are certainly seeing that, six ways from Sunday, over the superdelegates. However, I'm of the opinion that this was, at least in part, a trap laid to ensnare the online Obama support base. It's a speed bump designed to look like a knife in the tires. By keeping the netroots preoccupied with this issue, it's that much time in which they aren't out there supporting their candidate.
In the end, I believe less and less that the superdelegate issue has a great deal of legitimate thought in the HRC camp. Any 'victory' that pits the superdelegates against the will of the voters would be, at best, a Pyhrric victory, and at best a zero sum game for all involved. Instead, I am more inclined to believe that the superdelegate issue has been a foil, and a two-pronged attack by the HRC campaign, simultaneously blunting Obama momentum in the old media -- while subverting the strengths of the "new media" and the netroots.
Hillary's best shot at winning this thing doesn't depend on the goodwill of the superdelegates, but rather whithering and atrophy of the very base which has propelled Obama thus far in this election season. In this case, the Clinton campaign would be just as satisfied to watch the netroots choke themselves out as they would to get their hands dirty.
The solution, of course, is simple. Don't let it happen. Don't concern yourself with the issue. Let the campaign itself be concerned with the superdelegates, they're better equipped to handle these things.
Instead -- volunteer, donate, or otherwise support the Obama campaign. Stay on message. Barack Obama can and will get the Democratic nomination, he can and will be elected come November -- superdelegates be damned.
If a magician can't fool his audience, he's destined for many long nights with on many an empty stomach. Take that into consideration next time you hear someone bandy about the superdelegate situation. Don't throw them any scraps.